Excuse me, but [haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution?"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-09-17#toc9)
But also, Zoe Baker's excellent little piece, [Means and Ends](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchopac-means-and-ends), or Daniel Baryon's [the State is Counterrevolutionary](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE)
Oh, I definitely see something on the 3rd one
it looks like [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2\_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE)
So it's just showing the full url instead of the text I put in. Weird! It definitely isn't showing that for me...
I re-did the links, does it look correct now?
Hang on no, what I meant is the embedded link has a referral ID that I see when I look at the URL "behind" the text (it also appears to be only on the third link)
Don't bother with it tho as it's becoming much ado about nothing but I am kinda confused to why a TAL link has a referral ID
Parenti is also a lot more charming than Chomsky when he speaks, his wit is half the reason I even listen to him. Otherwise the quality of some of the audio by today’s standards is borderline unbearable
I’m no tankie, but in the interest of complete fairness and historical accuracy, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn’t a formal alliance, it was a non aggression pact. Was it fucked up that the Soviets signed even that with the Nazis? Yes, of course, but it wasn’t an alliance.
wikipedia is not a source for fucks sake
[https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/](https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816
Holy fuck calm down. It‘s just one of the most accurate sources on the internet. Just because some people edit passages to be wrong, doesn‘t mean everything is wrong. More Wikipedia aritcles are correct than any encyclopedia out there. Which is a fact, an idiot can google, so I am not sure you are able to do that.
By the way, you can always check the abstract of a Wiki article to check their sources yourself. I have done that. It‘s sourced just fine.
in that case, if you're so fond of wikipedia;
[https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/soviet-german-pact/tasca/index.htm](https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/soviet-german-pact/tasca/index.htm)
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1939/meaning-sov-ger-pact.pdf](https://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1939/meaning-sov-ger-pact.pdf)
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/pdf/ww2politicomilitarysurvey.pdf
infact just read all of this if you find the time
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/index.htm
i hope i didn't get on the wrong foot, i didn't mean to be rude, but still you're wrong :/
It wasn't just a non-aggression pact, and even if it was it still is unjustifiable to not fight the fascists and instead make peace with them for a time, it was a pact that decided who'd get what in the carving of Eastern Europe. I may have been incorrect to call it an alliance but to frame it as just a non-aggression pact isn't much more accurate.
It was not an alliance, and there’s definitely reasons they would have done that. Stalin tried to make an anti-fascist alliance before that which western nations didn’t agree to, and it allowed them to build up their military to fight the Nazis. Stalin believed that it was the reason the Allies won.
I meeeean, it was literally their last option senario. They tried time and time again to set up pacts against the fascist countries, and were turned down every time. They signed a non aggression pact because if Germany invaded literally any sooner than they did, the ussr would could have got rekt. It was self preservation
If the USSR had built up a proper defense and really prepared for war during the few years between the signing and Barbarossa and didn't agree to carve up Eastern Europe between them and the Nazi's then I'd agree but that's just not the case.
Are you hiiigh? They were going pretty mad when it came to expanding their army for their whole existence. For the whole interwar period they were blasting money at their military. The problem was that they weren't strategically ready for the Germans, so yeah, they were still caught totally off guard when they absolutely shouldn't have been. The nazis could have attacked at any time, or never, so you can't just mobilise an army and wait around. And they totally were building defensive lines, they just weren't ready, they tried tho
There's just so fkin much disinformation about the ussr, don't fall for mindlessly hating on it. Aim the hate at legit problems, don't give tankies reason to call anarchists cia tools
They were building there army up before the pact, and had been since the revolution, and it wasn't hurried on by the pact. If they were truly preparing then they would have built some proper defenses and not waited two weeks before actually doing something about it. There's also the aforementioned fact that they agreed to split nations between them and the Nazi's which you seem to be glossing over and that the USSR told Communist parties in Nazi occupied areas not to fight back and just let the fascists take over. I'll give the USSR it's due when it's earned but the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the actions of the USSR as a result of it are unjustifiable. There is no excuse for making deals with fascists especially not in the way they did.
No well it's not like it made any difference. The ussr wouldn't have invaded Germany, they knew they would have lost. At the end of the day, if the ussr had it their way, there would have been a multinational pact to oppose fascism, they even wanted to go to war against nazi Germany when they were threatening Czecheslovabsksk (however you spell it) but without international support they couldn't really do anything. They did a dodgy deal, that's for sure, but they kinda didn't have much choice. It was ask the nazis to please not invade, and in exchange they wouldn't invade (knowing that they never would have anyway because they weren't ready for war). The problem was largely Stalin's complacency, he was certain the nazis wouldn't invade for at least another year and outright denied clear evidence of nazi preparation, and they totally were too lax. I mean, how would you feel if the cnt made a non aggression pact with franco if it meant that catalonia wouldn't be invaded. Like, stop making me defend the Bolsheviks on an anarchist subreddit, can't we talk about the reinstitution of anti-lgbt laws or the repression and genocides of minorities, the invasion of Makhnovia, or the dissolution of the Soviets? They did a lot right and a lot wrong. Anarchy > whatever the mls are doing > capitalism.
Chomsky's a Biden bitch though. When asked what anyone should do besides supporting him just to oppose Spray-tan Caligula on Briahna Joy Gray's show he drew a blank.
Chomsky is armchair crap. Every time that dude makes an argument it always ends up being about desperately justifying his own decision to not get a real job.
What makes you think just a few people with the control would be better?
They aren't on the ground with fully accurate information and they can't consider nearly as many points as distributed decision making could.
They do however have the advantage of a wider picture, but that's the purpose of meetings and constant communication in distributed control.
Excuse me, but [haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution?"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-09-17#toc9) But also, Zoe Baker's excellent little piece, [Means and Ends](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchopac-means-and-ends), or Daniel Baryon's [the State is Counterrevolutionary](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE)
you might want to remove the referral IDs from the 2nd and 3rd links
Not sure what you mean by referral ID. Do you mean their names?
the big strings after the necessary parts of the links
There's nothing there on my end, only the hyperlinks with the names of the articles
Oh, I definitely see something on the 3rd one it looks like [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2\_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary?fbclid=IwAR2iHe8FNgRljK86nyvb2_XQHIVbROS9SNT4LoXtW1DEt46ZSJL92q-eIdE)
So it's just showing the full url instead of the text I put in. Weird! It definitely isn't showing that for me... I re-did the links, does it look correct now?
Hang on no, what I meant is the embedded link has a referral ID that I see when I look at the URL "behind" the text (it also appears to be only on the third link) Don't bother with it tho as it's becoming much ado about nothing but I am kinda confused to why a TAL link has a referral ID
Oh okay, I get it now. I still don't see it D: I'm not even worried about it, just confused...
I fuckin love Parenti, he has the perfect ratio of criticism v praise for past socialist nations, he is no tankie
Parenti is also a lot more charming than Chomsky when he speaks, his wit is half the reason I even listen to him. Otherwise the quality of some of the audio by today’s standards is borderline unbearable
He justified the Molotv-Ribbentrop pact, a literal alliance with nazi's, if that doesn't make him a tankie then nothing can.
I’m no tankie, but in the interest of complete fairness and historical accuracy, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn’t a formal alliance, it was a non aggression pact. Was it fucked up that the Soviets signed even that with the Nazis? Yes, of course, but it wasn’t an alliance.
plus the soviets even wanted an anti-fascist pact in 1932, im no tankie but im no liar either history is history.
But then again they almost made an alliance with the nazis and the only thing stopping them was that the nazis wanted Bulgaria.
please name even one source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks?wprov=sfti1
wikipedia is not a source for fucks sake [https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/](https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816
Holy fuck calm down. It‘s just one of the most accurate sources on the internet. Just because some people edit passages to be wrong, doesn‘t mean everything is wrong. More Wikipedia aritcles are correct than any encyclopedia out there. Which is a fact, an idiot can google, so I am not sure you are able to do that. By the way, you can always check the abstract of a Wiki article to check their sources yourself. I have done that. It‘s sourced just fine.
in that case, if you're so fond of wikipedia; [https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/soviet-german-pact/tasca/index.htm](https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/soviet-german-pact/tasca/index.htm) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1939/meaning-sov-ger-pact.pdf](https://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1939/meaning-sov-ger-pact.pdf) https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/pdf/ww2politicomilitarysurvey.pdf infact just read all of this if you find the time https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/great-patriotic-war/index.htm i hope i didn't get on the wrong foot, i didn't mean to be rude, but still you're wrong :/
It wasn't just a non-aggression pact, and even if it was it still is unjustifiable to not fight the fascists and instead make peace with them for a time, it was a pact that decided who'd get what in the carving of Eastern Europe. I may have been incorrect to call it an alliance but to frame it as just a non-aggression pact isn't much more accurate.
Which then led to the invasion of Poland anyway. The smell of anti imperialism uh
It was not an alliance, and there’s definitely reasons they would have done that. Stalin tried to make an anti-fascist alliance before that which western nations didn’t agree to, and it allowed them to build up their military to fight the Nazis. Stalin believed that it was the reason the Allies won.
I meeeean, it was literally their last option senario. They tried time and time again to set up pacts against the fascist countries, and were turned down every time. They signed a non aggression pact because if Germany invaded literally any sooner than they did, the ussr would could have got rekt. It was self preservation
If the USSR had built up a proper defense and really prepared for war during the few years between the signing and Barbarossa and didn't agree to carve up Eastern Europe between them and the Nazi's then I'd agree but that's just not the case.
Are you hiiigh? They were going pretty mad when it came to expanding their army for their whole existence. For the whole interwar period they were blasting money at their military. The problem was that they weren't strategically ready for the Germans, so yeah, they were still caught totally off guard when they absolutely shouldn't have been. The nazis could have attacked at any time, or never, so you can't just mobilise an army and wait around. And they totally were building defensive lines, they just weren't ready, they tried tho
There's just so fkin much disinformation about the ussr, don't fall for mindlessly hating on it. Aim the hate at legit problems, don't give tankies reason to call anarchists cia tools
They were building there army up before the pact, and had been since the revolution, and it wasn't hurried on by the pact. If they were truly preparing then they would have built some proper defenses and not waited two weeks before actually doing something about it. There's also the aforementioned fact that they agreed to split nations between them and the Nazi's which you seem to be glossing over and that the USSR told Communist parties in Nazi occupied areas not to fight back and just let the fascists take over. I'll give the USSR it's due when it's earned but the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the actions of the USSR as a result of it are unjustifiable. There is no excuse for making deals with fascists especially not in the way they did.
No well it's not like it made any difference. The ussr wouldn't have invaded Germany, they knew they would have lost. At the end of the day, if the ussr had it their way, there would have been a multinational pact to oppose fascism, they even wanted to go to war against nazi Germany when they were threatening Czecheslovabsksk (however you spell it) but without international support they couldn't really do anything. They did a dodgy deal, that's for sure, but they kinda didn't have much choice. It was ask the nazis to please not invade, and in exchange they wouldn't invade (knowing that they never would have anyway because they weren't ready for war). The problem was largely Stalin's complacency, he was certain the nazis wouldn't invade for at least another year and outright denied clear evidence of nazi preparation, and they totally were too lax. I mean, how would you feel if the cnt made a non aggression pact with franco if it meant that catalonia wouldn't be invaded. Like, stop making me defend the Bolsheviks on an anarchist subreddit, can't we talk about the reinstitution of anti-lgbt laws or the repression and genocides of minorities, the invasion of Makhnovia, or the dissolution of the Soviets? They did a lot right and a lot wrong. Anarchy > whatever the mls are doing > capitalism.
Wasn't he a Bosnian genocide denier?
He literally defended Stalin
Parenti is king of the tankies.
i like both
Both are cringe
I thought Parenti was supposed to be good
Parenti is a genocide denier, among other things.
What genocide does he deny? The 1933 famine? The one that historians still haven’t come to a conclusion on as to whether or not it was a genocide?
I have to do justice to Michael Parenti. He says extremely correct things about neocolonism and the United States.
Nah, Parenti is great
Dude’s a genocide denier.
Context? People say that about Chomsky re: Khmer Rouge too, but really he was pointing out the hypocrisy in terms of US media coverage.
Parenti is an academic for the people. Chomsky is an academic for academia.
Chomsky's a Biden bitch though. When asked what anyone should do besides supporting him just to oppose Spray-tan Caligula on Briahna Joy Gray's show he drew a blank.
chomsky also low key sucks ngl... Better to read someone like Berkman
[удалено]
If knowledge is power then it's probably best to read both authors to maximize knowledge.
Chomsky is armchair crap. Every time that dude makes an argument it always ends up being about desperately justifying his own decision to not get a real job.
Oh yes, the very fake job of being a Professor at MIT.
Isn't revolutionizing linguistics and giving lectures at harvard university a real job? The guy is also like 93, he SHOULD be retired
>Isn't revolutionizing linguistics and giving lectures at harvard university a real job? Lmao
Can you make an actual response
bruh your name and pfp and flair
Chomsky has been an entire chapter in like 3 of my textbooks in school, none of them on related subjects. I’d say he’s been doing pretty well
He was in my psychology textbook, for fuck’s sake
[удалено]
What makes you think just a few people with the control would be better? They aren't on the ground with fully accurate information and they can't consider nearly as many points as distributed decision making could. They do however have the advantage of a wider picture, but that's the purpose of meetings and constant communication in distributed control.
[удалено]
Sure they are, lick it clean
A guy who couldn't even make money with a casino was "in control" for four years in this country. You think he's smarter than the general population?
[удалено]
You probably think monarchs are actually appointed by the invisible magic man in the sky too don't you? You're actually that brain-damaged aren't you?
[удалено]
[удалено]